Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

PLEASE don't see this thread as an attempt to revive any kind of "does aikido really work?" discussion. Nothing interests me less. Instead, I thought it would be useful to share what I personally love about Aikido...

My brother has trained in kick-boxing for quite a few years and loves UFC, etc. I, on the other hand, have studied aikido for about 3 years and despise UFC. He is particularly interested in the 'practicality' of martial arts and that got me thinking what one would want out of a contemporary martial art.

It seems to me that it might have to have 3 elements:

1) It teaches you how (not) to fight

Does the martial art actually develop us as moral beings, teaching us how to promote peace, as much as how to fight?

2) It makes you feel more relaxed, not more violent

Following on from point 1 above, does the martial art help you dispose of the stress and tension of the day, removing those unwanted knee-jerk resorts to violence?

3) It enables a gentle application of the martial art

Given that many contemporary scenes of violence involve friends and family, we may not want to always go all out. Does the martial art then allow the possibility of using the least possible resistance?

4) It is an effective form of self-defence

Much of 'self-defence' is covered in the earlier items, although some might still use the term in its more tradtioinal sense of physical defensive techniques to defend against physical attacks. Given that limited definition, does the martial art provide tools and techniques to defend against attack?

5) It is effective against multiple attackers

Does the martial art provide techniques for defending oneself against a group of attackers?

If these questions are relevant, it suggests to me that much of what we see in things like UFC is as far as one could get from likely contemporary scenes of violence. Conversely, aikido actually scores quite highly in terms of a practical contemporary martial art.

PLEASE don't see this thread as an attempt to revive any kind of "does aikido really work?" discussion. Nothing interests me less. Instead, I thought it would be useful to share what I personally love about Aikido...

My brother has trained in kick-boxing for quite a few years and loves UFC, etc. I, on the other hand, have studied aikido for about 3 years and despise UFC. He is particularly interested in the 'practicality' of martial arts and that got me thinking what one would want out of a contemporary martial art.

It seems to me that it might have to have 3 elements:

1) It teaches you how (not) to fight

Does the martial art actually develop us as moral beings, teaching us how to promote peace, as much as how to fight?

No, that is a myth. See UFC. Morals are not part of the UFC- past the point of rules and a ref. They are not substancial enough to be considered taught. What they have is sportsmenship, rules, and a ref. Any morality within the fighter is learned from some place else.

Yes, if, morals are to be added to martial arts. They must be properly enforced, practiced, and modeled by the instructor. Then they must be supported and practiced by the dojo.

Quote:

2) It makes you feel more relaxed, not more violent

Following on from point 1 above, does the martial art help you dispose of the stress and tension of the day, removing those unwanted knee-jerk resorts to violence?

Myth, that is not the case. Such things are brought in from other sourses and studies such as Zen etc.

Quote:

3) It enables a gentle application of the martial art

Given that many contemporary scenes of violence involve friends and family, we may not want to always go all out. Does the martial art then allow the possibility of using the least possible resistance?

Myth. We might think so coming from morals and Zen etc. You don't known that stuff until you are threatened how you are going to act or react. It is true mental training for such situations helps, i.e. like what cops, etc. Those people get trained to react and handle the stress and the adrealine dump etc. because that will be face on the job. Something they deal with on daily basis, or expect to face-even that is dealt with on a daily basis. Most martial arts places pay lip service to it.

Quote:

4) It is an effective form of self-defence

Much of 'self-defence' is covered in the earlier items, although some might still use the term in its more tradtioinal sense of physical defensive techniques to defend against physical attacks. Given that limited definition, does the martial art provide tools and techniques to defend against attack?

That is up to the individual.

Quote:

5) It is effective against multiple attackers

Does the martial art provide techniques for defending oneself against a group of attackers?

If these questions are relevant, it suggests to me that much of what we see in things like UFC is as far as one could get from likely contemporary scenes of violence. Conversely, aikido actually scores quite highly in terms of a practical contemporary martial art.

Any thoughts?

Most martial arts are out-dated or like the UFC not designed from multi-attacks. That doesn't mean they can't be effective in some situation against some type of attackers. It means, if you are attacked by a street gang (who will be armed) who intends to kidnap you from money. The whole discussion of a group attack is mute. Unless your martial art teaches you how to use a high powered automatic weapon that teaches you how to handle the stress, the adrenaline dump, and all the other tactics, and strategies associated with that. You might have a chance if you are not taken by surprise and you just have to defend yourself. Meaning your not at home in bed in the middle of the night with your family.

UFC is an entertainment sport and has the same relevant stuff as Pro boxing, Pro wrestling, Pro Football, Pro Hockey. Btw, Hockey players are under rated fighters. Hockey is a martial art!

The real problem is people live in hypotheticals and fantasy worlds, be it UFC, Aikido, etc. That really is imo the issue.

PLEASE don't see this thread as an attempt to revive any kind of "does aikido really work?" discussion. Nothing interests me less. Instead, I thought it would be useful to share what I personally love about Aikido...

Of course what you seem to love about Aikido is it's effectiveness in these areas, so I'm not sure how this thread will avoid the "does it really work" discussion...if for no other reason than someone will want to inject a caveat and then probably want to discuss it. I think the examples you gave are good ones for how Aikido can be helpful, but I also think there are valid counterpoints that have to be included in a discussion about the virtues of these things too.

Quote:

If these questions are relevant, it suggests to me that much of what we see in things like UFC is as far as one could get from likely contemporary scenes of violence. Conversely, aikido actually scores quite highly in terms of a practical contemporary martial art.

Any thoughts?

Well, first off, I think many people would say Aikido is non-contemporary because it doesn't include firearms. Granted, firearms are less present in some places than others, but that's a part of my point: "contemporary" is a somewhat relative issue. Also, I agree UFC trains for a very specific scenario, but in many ways, it's not unlike the very specific scenarios we in Aikido practice. The question of how practical our training is comes in how the individual can translate those scenarios into organic/spontaneous interactions...and I think that is a case by case thing based more on individual people and schools than on whole arts.
Maybe another way to look at it is this: in the grand scheme of practical self-defense there is a lot of ground to cover. Some of us need to focus more on the list of skills you provided while some of us need to focus on something more like "ground and pound" (a gross simplification of MMA).
By two-bits at least.

No, that is a myth. See UFC. Morals are not part of the UFC- past the point of rules and a ref. They are not substancial enough to be considered taught. What they have is sportsmenship, rules, and a ref. Any morality within the fighter is learned from some place else.

Hi Philip,

I'm afraid that I'm at a real loss to see what you're actually responding to. What are you actually saying is a myth?

As I tried to make abundantly clear, I'm not interested in an Aikido vs. UFC discussion. That was simply the context for my post.

Quote:

Philip Burgess wrote:

Myth, that is not the case. Such things are brought in from other sourses and studies such as Zen etc.

No, it's not a myth. I'm explaining what it is that I appreciate about aikido and how it matches what I personally would be looking for in a contemporary martial art. Your list may not be the same as mine, and your experience of aikido may not be the same as mine, but I fail to see how that make this a myth.

Quote:

Philip Burgess wrote:

Most martial arts are out-dated or like the UFC not designed from multi-attacks.

That may well be true - though it begs the question 'outdated for what?' - but I'm not interested in most martial arts. This was simply a personal post about aikido and why I personally value it as a contemporary martial art.

Of course what you seem to love about Aikido is it's effectiveness in these areas, so I'm not sure how this thread will avoid the "does it really work" discussion...if for no other reason than someone will want to inject a caveat and then probably want to discuss it. I think the examples you gave are good ones for how Aikido can be helpful, but I also think there are valid counterpoints that have to be included in a discussion about the virtues of these things too.

Yes, I think you might be right. In that case, I would be the first to put my hands up and apologise, because I'd guess that I'm not the only one to be thoroughly bored by that discussion.

Reading it again, my post was really badly written. What I was trying to do was a) compile a list of the kinds of things I personally would look for in a contemporary martial art and b) compile a list of the things I love about aikido. I was then gonna be all smug and clever and show how the two lists were - from my perspective, at least - virtually identical.

Quote:

Maybe another way to look at it is this: in the grand scheme of practical self-defense there is a lot of ground to cover. Some of us need to focus more on the list of skills you provided while some of us need to focus on something more like "ground and pound" (a gross simplification of MMA).

How do you actually use a martial art to teach someone how NOT to fight?

What I am getting at is how do you take a methodology that is designed to impart many ways to teach someone to fight, and then say the endstate is to teach them how NOT to fight?

It seems to me that your endstate is to teach them how to fight. It might be a by product that the learn to judiciously apply that skill as might be required.

I am alway curious when I hear folks say "our goal is to teach people how not to fight." I mean at face value, that is what they probably come to you with already, the inabiity to fight!"

It may seem trival, but I see alot of stuff out there being passed off as "martial" that simply is not, and the phrase "we are teaching people how not to fight". is the caveat that seems to get used to excuse any real ability and gives permission to reduce it to an "allegory" or an "exercise".

How do you actually use a martial art to teach someone how NOT to fight?

I must be being a bit slow today. I don't really see what you're questionning? Are you arguing that Aikido doesn't teach one how not to fight? Or questioning my personal experience that it has done that? Or, perhaps, suggesting that when it does that it's no longer aikido?

All I know is that I work in enough inter-personal conflict situations (domestic violence, child welfare, etc.) and have studies martial arts long enough that I'm convinced that a decent contemporary martial art should contain elements of conflict resolution. (If it doesn't, it's just fighting.) It can do this explicitly or implicitly. If the latter, perhaps it's just in the way that the art transforms us as people when we study it.

Personally, my experience with aikido (and I'm an 'aiki-fairy' who is honoured to study ki aikido in the tradition of Sensei Ken Williams) says that it is both explicit and implicit.

Some words from Terry Dobson, which I hope I'm not misquoting, spring to mind:

'It is your responsibility to protect the person who is attacking you. This is extremely sophisticated, because it is difficult for your enemy to attack you when you are in a compassionate mode.'

Also:

'Fighting my brother is fighting myself; I am not going to punch myself. So, make a brother of your enemy.'

And, one of my favourites:

'Just because someone wants to have a conflict doesn't mean you have to agree to enter into it. Put the phone down and walk away. Get your centre. Come back and say, "Sorry to have kept you waiting." This drives people nuts, but it's legal.'

From what I can tell Dobson Sensei would not have considered such things to be simply a side-effect of studying Aikido. I believe he would have considered it aikido in practice.

As O Sensei put it:

''Aiki is not a technique to fight with or defeat the enemy. It is the way to reconcile the world and make human beings one family."

"A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests with nothing." (O Sensei)

I'm afraid that I'm at a real loss to see what you're actually responding to. What are you actually saying is a myth?

As I tried to make abundantly clear, I'm not interested in an Aikido vs. UFC discussion. That was simply the context for my post.

No, it's not a myth. I'm explaining what it is that I appreciate about aikido and how it matches what I personally would be looking for in a contemporary martial art. Your list may not be the same as mine, and your experience of aikido may not be the same as mine, but I fail to see how that make this a myth.

That may well be true - though it begs the question 'outdated for what?' - but I'm not interested in most martial arts. This was simply a personal post about aikido and why I personally value it as a contemporary martial art.

Have you ever counted the number of times Aikido is compared to UFC in threads?

Outdated is the right word. An example of a truly contemporary system, is combatives systems. Systems that deal with what and how criminals assault others. Criminals and their attacks get upgraded like other stuff. They work their stuff. They think about what they do and how to do it better, they improve upon it all the time. Their goal is to be successful and win too.

Many martial arts are just that arts. They are not about change, I mean, do you do Aikido in a living room, or a bar setting, or something like that. Do you practice in a parking lot after it rains or during the rain, etc. Do you practice in your street clothes. When you do perform a technique your not surprised, you know what to expect. No, you practice in a place that is the most least likely place you will ever be attacked barefoot. That place has a soft even dry floor. Your not ever surprised, in a white Japanese pajamas, if someone attacks you. Overall, yea, out dated.

To be fair when I say out dated, it doesn't mean MMA is any better with that stuff.

Full contact just describes the degree to which you apply your striking techniques. No contact: you make no contact. Light/semi contact: you tap them. Full contact: You hit them as hard as possible.
It's a measure of power used in technique rather than what kind of techniques are used.

How do you actually use a martial art to teach someone how NOT to fight?

I was about to ask the same thing.

Using martial arts to teach someone not to fight?
This sounds like some romantasized thing smeone came up with.
Like someone claiming to be a pacifist warrior.

Quote:

Philip Burgess wrote:

LOL......

Are you agreeing or disagreeing Phil?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not tryng to bash Aikido it's my favorite martial art. I can't stand the UFC. I won't watch the fights and I can't stand all the T shirts hats stickers and UFC groupies. Guys talk about it and I go off and pick my nose somewhere.

Taking an average Aikido student who attends 2 to 3 classes a week and comparing them to a UFC fighter who trains 6 days a week and is probably in the 1% of their class (assuming they beat out a lot of compitition to get where they are) is to me like comparing your average soldier with a Navy Seal.

It's apples and oranges

One comment I see surface often is that one of Aikido's great things is that it trains you against multiple opponents.
I won't disagree, I'm certain saved my ass in a fight but the thing is if we turn around and assume another martial art is weaker because if it IE "They don't train UFC fighters against multiple opponents!" we, the Aikido community, end up looking like we're grasping at straws.

Quote:

'Just because someone wants to have a conflict doesn't mean you have to agree to enter into it. Put the phone down and walk away. Get your centre. Come back and say, "Sorry to have kept you waiting." This drives people nuts, but it's legal.'

This sounds like it might work very very well over the phone. Less so in a back ally somewhere.

I am alway curious when I hear folks say "our goal is to teach people how not to fight."

Perhaps what is meant by this is teaching one to make sure a situation can be brought under control in a very fast, efficient way. If one has some type of training, a situation may not get out of hand. Control and harmony can be quickly restored.

If someone is good at Aikido for example, they may be able to end the fight before it really begins.

Have you ever counted the number of times Aikido is compared to UFC in threads?

Outdated is the right word. An example of a truly contemporary system, is combatives systems. Systems that deal with what and how criminals assault others. Criminals and their attacks get upgraded like other stuff. They work their stuff. They think about what they do and how to do it better, they improve upon it all the time. Their goal is to be successful and win too.

Many martial arts are just that arts. They are not about change, I mean, do you do Aikido in a living room, or a bar setting, or something like that. Do you practice in a parking lot after it rains or during the rain, etc. Do you practice in your street clothes. When you do perform a technique your not surprised, you know what to expect. No, you practice in a place that is the most least likely place you will ever be attacked barefoot. That place has a soft even dry floor. Your not ever surprised, in a white Japanese pajamas, if someone attacks you. Overall, yea, out dated.

To be fair when I say out dated, it doesn't mean MMA is any better with that stuff.

Sounds like an argument in favour of creating a kata for applying ikkyo against ten looters while sitting on the toilet with your trousers around your ankles after the roofs been blown off by a hurricane and the house is burning down around you. It could happen, are you ready for it?

Modern systems like you describe are not about change either, they are just new, like Takenouchi Ryu was new 500 years ago.
The point of older systems is not to create a system which is "If this happens, then do this" that's an impossibility.

The point is to create someone that doesn't have an adrenalin rush and doesn't get suprised. An adrenalin rush is a sign of an untrained mind, you've not trained to associate being attacked or being surprised with relaxation.

Taking an average Aikido student who attends 2 to 3 classes a week and comparing them to a UFC fighter who trains 6 days a week and is probably in the 1% of their class (assuming they beat out a lot of compitition to get where they are) is to me like comparing your average soldier with a Navy Seal.

I'm not too familiar with the UFC but I have watched them in the past, but I think they, like many martial arts focus on technique and physical strength. There's a componant to Aikido that you may be forgetting....Ki.

I just read where an Aikido Sensei in Canada who weighs about 160 lbs, let a student try to pick him up while he was just standing. The student was I believe over 200 lbs and worked out, yet he was unable to life the 160 pound person.

Or the three students pushing against the Jo O Sensi was holding while at the same time another student behind him trying to pull him back. All four of these students were unable to move O Sensei. There's more to Aikido than technique and physical strength.

Energy and training to keep ones ego in control. From what I've seen of the UFC, ego isn't controlled...it's fed.